I'm no lawyer, but am thinking that concerning civilian deaths (collateral damage) according to 18USC2441-War Crimes: (d)(1)(D), such casualties would depend on 'intent'. Protocols I & II of the Geneva Convention are fairly recent, address the subject more directly...and oddly have not been signed by the US, Israel, Iran, Pakistan or Turkey. Of course a non-signatory (if they lose the war) could be tried in international court.
No, but he sure as hell escalated one of them and lauded it as a war that Mr. Bush should in fact have paid MORE attention to. That, and he sextupled the drone attacks in Pakistan.......So, I gather that you disagree with Mr. Chomsky here?
Les, dmarks, I challenged wd once to come up with one prominent Democratic politician and/or liberal talking-head who spoke out against the Afghanistan War early on. I also challenged him to find one from this same subset who EVER thought that we should have handed bin Laden (the rest of the network we should have totally let off the hook, I gather) over to an organization that was peopled by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hafaz al Assad, Muammar Gadaffi, the Iranian mullahs, the Saudi Royal family, and Yasser Arafat.......Needless to say, the phone isn't exactly ringing off the hook.
Mr. Bush should in fact have paid MORE attention to.
I for one cannot disagree with this statement.
If Bush had concentrated on Bin Laden and Afghanistan instead of removing elements central to that fight to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, the Afghan situation could very well have been resolved years ago and we wouldn't have wasted the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on his ill-advised untenable invasion which has resulted in more influence for Iran and destabilisation of the region for at least a generation.
"Rational": Iraq was action based on faulty intelligence, the result was a destabilized Mid East. It has been getting worse ever since.
You're right except for the "faulty intelligence" bit. "Faulty intelligence" is what the bushies called their lies after no WMD was found.
dmarks: Nor did Bush
The IAEA weapons inspectors said Iraq had no WMD. Ergo, bush lied. It's pretty simple, yet dmarks is willfully deluded about the truth because bush has an "R" after his name. He probably bought into all the fear mongering as well. dmarks was most likely frightened out of his mind.
Will: I also challenged him to find one from this same subset who EVER thought that we should have handed bin Laden [blah, blah, blah].
You "challenged" me? How the hell could anyone have weighed in on this offer when it was never considered????? bush immediately rejected it.
Will: ...we should have handed bin Laden... over to an organization that was peopled by the likes of [names people who were not members of the OIC].
Their countries were, wd, and they ruled those countries with an iron-fist.............And that's why I said, EVER - meaning that even in retrospect nobody would ever consider it. I mean, yeah, there's been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking but nobody in the mainstream of the Democratic party has ever said (not even frigging Sanders or Olbermann), "Gee, what a mistake it was that Bush never agreed to hand bin Laden over to that Islamic council."
I did check. All were or are members of the OIC. What a waste of time to fact-check WD's statements. As he never fact checks them himself before he types them.
As there is no evidence of Bush war crimes, it won't happen. Ema, you are letting your blind partisan hatred get in the way of reason. But that is apparent when you are too immature to call a President by his real name.
Ema, you are in fine company.. along with those who call Obama 'Obammy'.
Also concerning your comment, how can Will admit what is not true (Bush war crimes)? He paraphrasing noted Khmer Rouge PR flack Noam Chomsky not presenting his own view.
Will: ...nobody in the mainstream of the Democratic party has ever said... "Gee, what a mistake it was that Bush never agreed to hand bin Laden over to that Islamic council".
Why would they? There would be no upside to saying so, only downside. Most people aren't even aware that an offer was made.
dmarks: I did check. All were or are members of the OIC. What a waste of time to fact-check WD's statements. As he never fact checks them himself before he types them.
Obviously you did not check, as your answer is wrong. Check Will's answer... it is right. They people you list were NOT members, only their countries were.
dmarks: As there is no evidence of Bush war crimes... you are letting your blind partisan hatred get in the way of reason.
There is a lot of evidence of bush's war crimes. He's on tape admitting he authorized waterboarding for Christ! But dmarks has allowed his blind partisan wealthy-worshipping allegience to the Republicans get in the way of reason.
Torture is a war crime. Government leaders are not above the law. Authorizing torture is a crime both nationally and internationally. Mr Bush admitted to authorizing torture.
So ... Mr Bush's being on record as authorizing the torture of people, make him ????????
Trying to avoid the truth goes right along with your associating with lying liars. The record is clear, US government officials authorizing war crimes makes one a war criminal.
"Why would they? There would be no upside to saying so, only downside."............And why is that, wd? Could it be that it's an absolutely ludicrous idea that pretty much every person in the free world would laugh at (not to mention that it would end that individual's career)?
I'll give you the water-boarding one, Ema. But FDR repeatedly targeted major population centers that had ZERO military or strategic value to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead children, elderly, etc., a CLEAR violation of the 1864 Geneva Conventions against targeting civilians and a set of acts that did NOTHING to end the war prematurely. Got a quick retort to that one, me-bucko?
Only in your imagination, Ema. In which someone gets a hollow insult 'war criminal' just for not being part of your narrow ideological window.
Why not write to the ICC and whine about Bush's imaginary war crimes? You would be just the latest of hundreds of cranks to do so.
As for WD's evasion about his beloved terrorist organization, the OIC, saying it is not the dictators who are memebers but instead it is the dictatorship they own is pretty funny. Try your own logic next time you get a speeding ticket.
Tell the cop it wasn't you who was speeding: it was your car.
Hey... for that matter, maybe Wd isn't lying all the time after all. His computer keyboard is doing it.
And what about Obama, Ema? That dude has sextupled the drone attacks in Pakistan and has also continued with the loathsome practice of rendition. It seems to me as if there's more than enough war criminality to go around.......And the dude who spearheaded this water-boarding shit has said that there are memos which state unequivocally that Nancy Pelosi was informed of these enhanced interrogation methods and didn't make a peep. I mean, why in the hell do you think that Mr.s Obama and Holder haven't tried to prosecute anybody? It's because there team was privy to it and didn't protest.
dmarks: As for WD's evasion about his beloved terrorist organization, the OIC, saying it is not the dictators who are memebers but instead it is the dictatorship they own is pretty funny. Try your own logic next time you get a speeding ticket.
The OIC is not a "terrorist organization". Also, inanimate objects aren't members of the OIC, people are. People who aren't the dictators you think are members.
And the members (people who are not the dictators you and Will list every time this subject comes up) are Moderate. I go with the facts as determined by the experts on this while dmarks goes with guesses based on his irrational prejudices.
Will: And the dude who spearheaded this water-boarding shit has said that there are memos which state unequivocally that Nancy Pelosi was informed of these enhanced interrogation methods...
Nancy Pelosi was not informed. The person you referred to is lying to cover his ass.
But we did get WD's lovely claim that individuals who are appointed by, controlled by, paid by, and officially represent the worst radical terrorist despots are somehow 'moderate'.
But we know that WD's definition of 'moderate' has nothing to do with reality.
It's great that the world terrorist bloc has such an empassioned apologist and defender in WD.
According to the Wikipedia entry, the participants in the OIC are foreign ministers from the member states. In the cases of the radical terrorist despots named multiple times, these foreign ministers in the OIC are directly appointed and completely represent (or represented) the interests of "Saddam Hussein, Hafaz al Assad, Muammar Gadaffi, the Iranian mullahs, the Saudi Royal family, and Yasser Arafat."
WD's claim "They people you list were NOT members, only their countries were."
is disingenous, deceptive, and extremely mendacious.
Will: And why is that, wd? Could it be that it's an absolutely ludicrous idea that pretty much every person in the free world would laugh at (not to mention that it would end that individual's career)?
First of all, most people aren't informed at all on this. They don't even know the offer was made. Secondly, yes, it could end their career, because many people are uninformed on this but think they are informed. Their reaction would be based on emotion as opposed to the facts (like dmarks).
Will: ...did NOTHING to end the war prematurely. Got a quick retort to that one, me-bucko?
Obviously he thought it would. Bush -- we have absolutely no idea if he lied or not... he just thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and was wrong. But FDR? Will knows for an absolute fact that he was a psychopathic sadist who grinned with maniacal joy when thinking of innocent civilians being incinerated.
dmarks: I know, in general, on any issue, Pelosi is typically uninformed. But on this, she was.
Nancy Pelosi was never briefed that detainees were being water boarded.
dmarks: And still no defense for the hallowed FDR.
You never demanded I defend FDR. Even if you had, I don't do anything just because dmarks demands it.
dmarks: But we did get WD's lovely claim that individuals who are appointed by, controlled by, paid by, and officially represent the worst radical terrorist despots are somehow 'moderate'.
And bush appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court, but obviously he didn't vote to strike down ObamaCare as the Rightwing that "controls" him commanded him to. As for the OIC being moderate, I just listen to the experts who say they are, as opposed to dmarks, who goes with his reactionary gut instinct to hate any Muslim organization and assume they're nothing more than terrorist puppets.
dmarks: But we know that WD's definition of 'moderate' has nothing to do with reality.
It's relative, but very much reality based.
dmarks: It's great that the world terrorist bloc has such an impassioned apologist and defender in WD.
I have never defended or apologized for terrorists. Unlike dmarks, who loves al Qaeda. So much so that he was 100 percent on board with bush's plan that swelled their ranks -- when Muslims, angry when their countries were illegally invaded, rushed to join up and defend their homelands against the invaders. dmarks was also relieved when OBL got away and wasn't tried for his crimes 10 years ago by the OIC or anyone else. He must have been extremely disappointed and saddened when OBL was killed by our Navy SEALS. No doubt dmarks cried.
Nor did Bush [start wars based on lies]. Whatever your point was, it's weaker than worthless.
bush lied his ass off. My point was that lying your ass off to go to war and kill tens of thousands for "political capital" is significantly worse than defending yourself in a war started by another (FDR) or continuing a war started by another (Obama). Your defense of bush on this is weaker than worthless.
So, wd, if somebody commits a war crime, it's excusable as long as he doesn't have malice in his heart and the ends justifies the means? Really?......If FDR ordered soldiers to go into every other house and kill babies point blank, would THAT have been a war crime and, if so, then how in the hell is incinerating them form 20,000 feet any different?
"... FDR ordered soldiers to go into every other house and kill babies point blank, would THAT have been a war crime and, if so, then how in the hell is incinerating them form 20,000 feet any different?"
Would be awfully hard to fit a wheel-chair in the bomber, don't cha think?
37 comments:
I'm no lawyer, but am thinking that
concerning civilian deaths (collateral damage) according to
18USC2441-War Crimes: (d)(1)(D),
such casualties would depend on
'intent'. Protocols I & II of the Geneva Convention are fairly recent, address the subject more directly...and oddly have not been
signed by the US, Israel, Iran,
Pakistan or Turkey. Of course a
non-signatory (if they lose the war) could be tried in international court.
Obama did not start any wars based on lies.
No, but he sure as hell escalated one of them and lauded it as a war that Mr. Bush should in fact have paid MORE attention to. That, and he sextupled the drone attacks in Pakistan.......So, I gather that you disagree with Mr. Chomsky here?
wd to the fore in defense of President 0 once again.
Nor did Bush, WD.
Iraq was action based on faulty intelligence, the result was a destabilized Mid East. It has been getting worse ever since.
Les, dmarks, I challenged wd once to come up with one prominent Democratic politician and/or liberal talking-head who spoke out against the Afghanistan War early on. I also challenged him to find one from this same subset who EVER thought that we should have handed bin Laden (the rest of the network we should have totally let off the hook, I gather) over to an organization that was peopled by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hafaz al Assad, Muammar Gadaffi, the Iranian mullahs, the Saudi Royal family, and Yasser Arafat.......Needless to say, the phone isn't exactly ringing off the hook.
Mr. Bush should in fact have paid MORE attention to.
I for one cannot disagree with this statement.
If Bush had concentrated on Bin Laden and Afghanistan instead of removing elements central to that fight to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, the Afghan situation could very well have been resolved years ago and we wouldn't have wasted the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on his ill-advised untenable invasion which has resulted in more influence for Iran and destabilisation of the region for at least a generation.
And I can't disagree with it, either (though I can't say that the nation-building component of the Afghan mission was ever a truly conceivable one).
Will, WD has called that group of terrorist despot all-stars that you named a "moderate" organization.
"Rational": Iraq was action based on faulty intelligence, the result was a destabilized Mid East. It has been getting worse ever since.
You're right except for the "faulty intelligence" bit. "Faulty intelligence" is what the bushies called their lies after no WMD was found.
dmarks: Nor did Bush
The IAEA weapons inspectors said Iraq had no WMD. Ergo, bush lied. It's pretty simple, yet dmarks is willfully deluded about the truth because bush has an "R" after his name. He probably bought into all the fear mongering as well. dmarks was most likely frightened out of his mind.
Will: I also challenged him to find one from this same subset who EVER thought that we should have handed bin Laden [blah, blah, blah].
You "challenged" me? How the hell could anyone have weighed in on this offer when it was never considered????? bush immediately rejected it.
Will: ...we should have handed bin Laden... over to an organization that was peopled by the likes of [names people who were not members of the OIC].
Those people were not members of the OIC.
Their countries were, wd, and they ruled those countries with an iron-fist.............And that's why I said, EVER - meaning that even in retrospect nobody would ever consider it. I mean, yeah, there's been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking but nobody in the mainstream of the Democratic party has ever said (not even frigging Sanders or Olbermann), "Gee, what a mistake it was that Bush never agreed to hand bin Laden over to that Islamic council."
I did check. All were or are members of the OIC. What a waste of time to fact-check WD's statements. As he never fact checks them himself before he types them.
.
"Obama's a worse war criminal than George W. Bush."
So you admit the shrub is a war criminal. Glad to see you are making headway in your treatments.
Do you think shrub should be delivered to the International War Crimes Commissions before or after the elections?
_____________
Electoral College:
Obama = 317 Needed to win = 270 Romney = 191
http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
As there is no evidence of Bush war crimes, it won't happen. Ema, you are letting your blind partisan hatred get in the way of reason. But that is apparent when you are too immature to call a President by his real name.
Ema, you are in fine company.. along with those who call Obama 'Obammy'.
Also concerning your comment, how can Will admit what is not true (Bush war crimes)? He paraphrasing noted Khmer Rouge PR flack Noam Chomsky not presenting his own view.
I see you have broken out of the asylum again Ema.
Will: ...nobody in the mainstream of the Democratic party has ever said... "Gee, what a mistake it was that Bush never agreed to hand bin Laden over to that Islamic council".
Why would they? There would be no upside to saying so, only downside. Most people aren't even aware that an offer was made.
dmarks: I did check. All were or are members of the OIC. What a waste of time to fact-check WD's statements. As he never fact checks them himself before he types them.
Obviously you did not check, as your answer is wrong. Check Will's answer... it is right. They people you list were NOT members, only their countries were.
dmarks: As there is no evidence of Bush war crimes... you are letting your blind partisan hatred get in the way of reason.
There is a lot of evidence of bush's war crimes. He's on tape admitting he authorized waterboarding for Christ! But dmarks has allowed his blind partisan wealthy-worshipping allegience to the Republicans get in the way of reason.
.
"As there is no evidence of Bush war crimes, ..."
Torture is a war crime. Government leaders are not above the law. Authorizing torture is a crime both nationally and internationally. Mr Bush admitted to authorizing torture.
So ... Mr Bush's being on record as authorizing the torture of people, make him ????????
_____________
Electoral College:
Obama = 317 Needed to win = 270 Romney = 191
http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema, you and wd using the same hallucinogenic drug?
That and the record is scratched...
.
RN -
"... record is scratched ..."
Trying to avoid the truth goes right along with your associating with lying liars. The record is clear, US government officials authorizing war crimes makes one a war criminal.
http://michiganmessenger.com/38487/bush-admits-to-war-crimes-in-grand-rapids-speech
So ... Mr Bush's being on record as authorizing the torture of people, make him ????????
_____________
Electoral College:
Obama = 317 Needed to win = 270 Romney = 191
http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"Why would they? There would be no upside to saying so, only downside."............And why is that, wd? Could it be that it's an absolutely ludicrous idea that pretty much every person in the free world would laugh at (not to mention that it would end that individual's career)?
I'll give you the water-boarding one, Ema. But FDR repeatedly targeted major population centers that had ZERO military or strategic value to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead children, elderly, etc., a CLEAR violation of the 1864 Geneva Conventions against targeting civilians and a set of acts that did NOTHING to end the war prematurely. Got a quick retort to that one, me-bucko?
.
"Got a quick retort to that one, me-bucko?"
Focus. You knowledge you are wrong. Don't try to weasel out. Say your sorry and leave it at that.
Focus. Bush = War Criminal
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Only in your imagination, Ema. In which someone gets a hollow insult 'war criminal' just for not being part of your narrow ideological window.
Why not write to the ICC and whine about Bush's imaginary war crimes? You would be just the latest of hundreds of cranks to do so.
As for WD's evasion about his beloved terrorist organization, the OIC, saying it is not the dictators who are memebers but instead it is the dictatorship they own is pretty funny. Try your own logic next time you get a speeding ticket.
Tell the cop it wasn't you who was speeding: it was your car.
Hey... for that matter, maybe Wd isn't lying all the time after all. His computer keyboard is doing it.
Seriously, WD. Your logic is hilarious.
And what about Obama, Ema? That dude has sextupled the drone attacks in Pakistan and has also continued with the loathsome practice of rendition. It seems to me as if there's more than enough war criminality to go around.......And the dude who spearheaded this water-boarding shit has said that there are memos which state unequivocally that Nancy Pelosi was informed of these enhanced interrogation methods and didn't make a peep. I mean, why in the hell do you think that Mr.s Obama and Holder haven't tried to prosecute anybody? It's because there team was privy to it and didn't protest.
No defense for the hallowed FDR, I see.
Hallucinations good Ema?
dmarks: As for WD's evasion about his beloved terrorist organization, the OIC, saying it is not the dictators who are memebers but instead it is the dictatorship they own is pretty funny. Try your own logic next time you get a speeding ticket.
The OIC is not a "terrorist organization". Also, inanimate objects aren't members of the OIC, people are. People who aren't the dictators you think are members.
And the members (people who are not the dictators you and Will list every time this subject comes up) are Moderate. I go with the facts as determined by the experts on this while dmarks goes with guesses based on his irrational prejudices.
Will: And the dude who spearheaded this water-boarding shit has said that there are memos which state unequivocally that Nancy Pelosi was informed of these enhanced interrogation methods...
Nancy Pelosi was not informed. The person you referred to is lying to cover his ass.
I know, in general, on any issue, Pelosi is typically uninformed. But on this, she was.
And still no defense for the hallowed FDR.
But we did get WD's lovely claim that individuals who are appointed by, controlled by, paid by, and officially represent the worst radical terrorist despots are somehow 'moderate'.
But we know that WD's definition of 'moderate' has nothing to do with reality.
It's great that the world terrorist bloc has such an empassioned apologist and defender in WD.
According to the Wikipedia entry, the participants in the OIC are foreign ministers from the member states. In the cases of the radical terrorist despots named multiple times, these foreign ministers in the OIC are directly appointed and completely represent (or represented) the interests of "Saddam Hussein, Hafaz al Assad, Muammar Gadaffi, the Iranian mullahs, the Saudi Royal family, and Yasser Arafat."
WD's claim "They people you list were NOT members, only their countries were."
is disingenous, deceptive, and extremely mendacious.
WD said: "Obama did not start any wars based on lies."
Nor did Bush. Whatever your point was, it's weaker than worthless.
Will: And why is that, wd? Could it be that it's an absolutely ludicrous idea that pretty much every person in the free world would laugh at (not to mention that it would end that individual's career)?
First of all, most people aren't informed at all on this. They don't even know the offer was made. Secondly, yes, it could end their career, because many people are uninformed on this but think they are informed. Their reaction would be based on emotion as opposed to the facts (like dmarks).
Will: ...did NOTHING to end the war prematurely. Got a quick retort to that one, me-bucko?
Obviously he thought it would. Bush -- we have absolutely no idea if he lied or not... he just thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and was wrong. But FDR? Will knows for an absolute fact that he was a psychopathic sadist who grinned with maniacal joy when thinking of innocent civilians being incinerated.
dmarks: I know, in general, on any issue, Pelosi is typically uninformed. But on this, she was.
Nancy Pelosi was never briefed that detainees were being water boarded.
dmarks: And still no defense for the hallowed FDR.
You never demanded I defend FDR. Even if you had, I don't do anything just because dmarks demands it.
dmarks: But we did get WD's lovely claim that individuals who are appointed by, controlled by, paid by, and officially represent the worst radical terrorist despots are somehow 'moderate'.
And bush appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court, but obviously he didn't vote to strike down ObamaCare as the Rightwing that "controls" him commanded him to. As for the OIC being moderate, I just listen to the experts who say they are, as opposed to dmarks, who goes with his reactionary gut instinct to hate any Muslim organization and assume they're nothing more than terrorist puppets.
dmarks: But we know that WD's definition of 'moderate' has nothing to do with reality.
It's relative, but very much reality based.
dmarks: It's great that the world terrorist bloc has such an impassioned apologist and defender in WD.
I have never defended or apologized for terrorists. Unlike dmarks, who loves al Qaeda. So much so that he was 100 percent on board with bush's plan that swelled their ranks -- when Muslims, angry when their countries were illegally invaded, rushed to join up and defend their homelands against the invaders. dmarks was also relieved when OBL got away and wasn't tried for his crimes 10 years ago by the OIC or anyone else. He must have been extremely disappointed and saddened when OBL was killed by our Navy SEALS. No doubt dmarks cried.
Nor did Bush [start wars based on lies]. Whatever your point was, it's weaker than worthless.
bush lied his ass off. My point was that lying your ass off to go to war and kill tens of thousands for "political capital" is significantly worse than defending yourself in a war started by another (FDR) or continuing a war started by another (Obama). Your defense of bush on this is weaker than worthless.
So, wd, if somebody commits a war crime, it's excusable as long as he doesn't have malice in his heart and the ends justifies the means? Really?......If FDR ordered soldiers to go into every other house and kill babies point blank, would THAT have been a war crime and, if so, then how in the hell is incinerating them form 20,000 feet any different?
.
"... FDR ordered soldiers to go into every other house and kill babies point blank, would THAT have been a war crime and, if so, then how in the hell is incinerating them form 20,000 feet any different?"
Would be awfully hard to fit a wheel-chair in the bomber, don't cha think?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Fairly witty, Ema.
Post a Comment